Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

nature. The following is the proof from reason. Accident is wholly in itself a form, according to the declarations made in the preceding Proposition. Its office or function is to actuate,-to give to its Subject a new mode of existence. But this is diametrically opposed to the nature of a purely passive potentiality. Corporal substance, indeed, requires a Material Cause to sustain the actuating form, and so to attain to its own subsistence as a complete entity. Nevertheless, Matter in itself does not contribute, except instrumentally, to the activity of substance; it would rather seem as though in some ways it limits and even hinders that activity. But accident does not subsist by itself, and is essentially incomplete. Therefore, in its own abstract Being it stands in no need of a Material Cause. Let us suppose, however, for the sake of argument, that accident is intrinsically composed of Matter as one of its essential constituents. In such hypothesis the Matter must either remain the same under diverse forms, or it must perish with the form. The first horn of the dilemma could not be reasonably accepted or maintained. For then a square could be made out of an angle, sweetness out of bitterness, softness out of roughness, love out of hatred, a thought out of a desire,-not in the Subject of inhesion, but in the accident itself, by a transformation similar to that which takes place in corporal substance. But what of the other horn of the dilemma? If this supposed Matter should change with every change of form, it could be of no service to the change itself. For all change requires a constant Subject remaining the same throughout. It could not, on the other hand, be of any service to the informing of the Subject of inhesion; for Matter, if anything, hinders actuation, in that it is purely passive. Therefore, it would be entirely useless. But, as the Philosopher observes in his Nicomachean Ethics, nature makes nothing in vain. Finally: if an accident were composed of Matter and form, its form should be subject to a like composition; for there is just as much reason for the one as for the other. The form, again, of this last-named composition would be under the same necessity; and so on, for ever. But to require an infinite series for the producing of a single entity, say, of the sweet smell of this lily, is tantamount to the impossibility of its production. Whether an infinite series of alternate generation and corruption be possible or not, is quite another question. There is all the difference between an infinite series in producing and an infinite series of productions.

II. THE SECOND MEMBER, in which it is declared that accident, considered in the concrete, postulates a Material Cause with which it enters intrinsically into composition, that is to say, with which it enters into a composition of which itself is an intrinsic constituent,— agrees with the teaching of the Angelic Doctor. Take in proof the following passages from his writings: Properly speaking, it is not consonant with the nature of any not-subsistent form to be made. But such forms are said to be made' (or, produced), 'because the subsisting composites are made1'; that is to say, they subsist and are said to be made because the subsisting Subject is made, with which they enter intrinsically into composition. Again: 'It is of the nature of accident to inhere and depend; and consequently, to enter into composition with the Subject 2. Once more: In answer to an objection touching the nature of contrary opposition, St. Thomas incidentally remarks, that in substance 'the genus is taken from the Matter; but in accidents the Subject is in the stead of Matter 3'; that is to say, that the Subject is the Material Cause of accident considered in the concrete.

The

The declaration of this Member of the Thesis is as follows. accidental composite,-say, for the sake of illustration, this white horse, is intrinsically composed of the Subject, this horse, and the quality of white in the horse. In this composition, the horse, as Subject, has in its essentially constituted entity a passive capacity for receiving the colour of white. This colour by information of its Subject actuates that potentiality. Hence, this is a white horse. In such composition, then, the Subject exhibits itself, relatively to the accidental form, as a pure receptivity, whatever may be its own substantial constitution and its active powers as it is absolutely in itself. Hence it is the Material Cause of the accident; and accident informs, and so far actuates it, after the same manner as the substantial form in the substantial composite. The union between the two is immediate; and the causality is simply the union of the Subject with its accident.

[ocr errors]

Et ideo nulli formae non subsistenti proprie convenit fieri, sed dicuntur fieri per hoc quod composita subsistentia fiunt.' Iao xc, 2, C.

[ocr errors]

2 Ratio accidentis imperfectionem continet; quia esse accidentis est inesse et dependere, et compositionem facere cum subjecto per consequens.'

a. 3, c.

I d. viii, Q. 4,

3 Genus sumitur ex materia; . . . in accidentibus autem loco materiae est subjec tum.' 1-20 XXXV, 4, 2m.

DIFFICULTIES.

I. The first difficulty is urged against the first Member of the Thesis. All entities that are composed of potentiality and act must have a Material Cause. But accident in the abstract is composed of potentiality and act; for, prior to its actuality in some Subject, it is in potentiality to some Subject. Therefore, accident, even in the abstract, admits a Material Cause.

ANSWER. The Major needs to be distinguished. All entities that are composed of potentiality and act, both being real and physically distinct, admit of a Material Cause,-granted; all entities that are composed of potentiality and act, when the two are not both real and physically distinct,—we must subdistinguish: admit of a Material Cause univocally,-denied; in an analogical and secondary sense, let it pass, or even granted. The Minor is contradistinguished. Accidental form, even in the abstract, is composed of potentiality and act, which are not both real and physically distinct, granted; which are both real and physically distinct,-denied. The Conclusion, therefore, subject to the given distinction is denied. It may not be amiss to subjoin a brief explanation of the above answer. In order to be justified in the assertion that an entity admits within itself of a Material Cause, it behoves us to show that such entity is physically composed of a real subjective potentiality and its real informing act; unless, indeed, one is using the term, Material Cause, in some analogical or metaphorical sense. But this is an impossibility, in the instance of accident considered in the abstract. For accident in the abstract has, can have, no existence. It is a mental abstraction, based upon concrete accident. If, then, it has no physical existence itself; how can it be composed of two constituents physically distinct?

II. The second objection is directed against the same Member of the Thesis. It is this. All entities that have a genus and difference, admit a Material Cause; for their genus is the Material, their difference the Formal Cause. But accident has its genus and difference. For instance, in white colour quality is the highest genus; colour, the proximate genus; whiteness-or rather whitethe difference.

ANSWER. The argument might be simply ended, by insisting on the fact that accidents in the abstract are not physical entities;

6

but concepts of the mind, founded in reality. Since, however, by accident in the abstract may be meant the entity of the accident as it is in itself, apart from its union in a given Subject, (for an entity of its own most assuredly it has, however imperfect), and as there is a certain verisimilitude in the objection (for accidents, in some way or other, do seem to fall under genera and species); it will be more satisfactory to give a direct answer to the difficulty. This shall be done in the words of St. Thomas. You must know,' he writes, 'that in accidents, as they exist in nature, there is nothing to correspond with the operation of the intellect in such wise, that they should be capable of receiving, like substance, the formal nature of genus and differences. For the essence of accident, as designated in the abstract, does not apparently represent any real entity. For the abstract represents a thing as existing by itself. But an accident cannot exist by itself. Wherefore, accident in the abstract does not apparently represent any true entity. It is to be observed, that the signification which is conveyed by names does not appertain to the natures of entities, save through the medium of an intellectual concept; since words are symbols of impressions in the soul, as it is said in the Book De Interpretatione. Now, the intellect can cognize separately by themselves entities that exist in a state. of union. But that which is cognized by itself separately, has the semblance of existing by itself; and, consequently, is represented by an abstract name which signifies its separation from other. . . . In this way, then, by the action of the intellect the abstract names of accidents represent entities that do indeed inhere, though they do not represent them as inherent. Wherefore, by the action of the intellect names are formed as though they were certain realities to which the same intellect subsequently attributes concepts of genera and species. But there was nothing in the nature of the entities, on which the intellect could base such universal concepts. Since, then, accident is not composed of Matter and form, in its case the genus and difference cannot be taken, as in the case of substance,-the genus from the Matter and the difference from the form; but in each and all of the accidents the genus must be assumed from that which is first discoverable in it, and the difference from that which is added subsequently. Now, that which is first discoverable in any accident, is a special mode of Being including a certain diversity from other modes of the same. Thus, for instance, in quantity there is a special mode of

accidental being' (entis per aliud, as distinguished from ens per se), 'viz. that it is the measure of substance' (i.e. material substance); 'and in quality, viz. that it is the disposition of substance; and so on, in each case. . . . The difference, however, must be assumed, in the instance of accidents, from something that is implicitly contained in that mode from which the genus of accident has been derived. Now, this is discovered in the diversity of principiants from which the accidents are caused. Thus, for instance, the character of measure is found in quantity; and this is common to every species of quantity. Hence it has received the name of a genus. But it is plain that successive are of their nature different principiants from permanent entities; and accordingly, they have different measures. Hence it is that, when accidents are defined in the abstract, the Subject is included obliquely in their definition and in the second place; which properly belongs to the difference. Thus, it is said that snubbiness is a curvature of the nose; by which snubbiness is distinguished from a curvature in wood 1.'

1 Sciendum est igitur, quod in accidentibus in rerum natura non est aliquid correspondens operationi intellectus, eo modo quo possint rationem generis et differentiarum recipere, sicut est in substantia. Essentia enim accidentis designata in abstracto non videtur ens aliquod significare; cum abstractum significet ut per se existens: accidens autem per se esse non potest: unde accidens in abstracto non videtur ens aliquod significare. Sed significatio quae importatur in nominibus, non pertinet ad naturas rerum, nisi mediante conceptione intellectus; cum voces sint notae passionum quae sunt in anima, ut dicitur in libro Perihermenias. Intellectus autem potest seorsum intelligere ea quae sunt conjuncta. Illud autem quod seorsum accipitur, videtur ut per se existens; et ideo designatur nomine abstracto, quod significat remotionem ejus ab alio. . . . Sic ergo per actionem intellectus nomina abstracta accidentium significant entia, quae quidem inhaerent, licet non significent ea per modum inhaerentium. Unde per actionem intellectus efficiuntur nomina quasi res quaedam, quibus idem intellectus postea attribuit intentiones generum et specierum. Nihil vero in natura rerum fuit, super quod intellectus fundaret intentiones universales. Cum autem accidens non sit compositum ex materia et forma, non potest genus et differentia sumi in eo, sicut sumitur in substantia genus a materia, differentia a forma; sed in unoquoque accidentium genus debet sumi ab eo quod prius in eo reperitur, differentia vero ab eo quod post accidit. Primum autem quod invenitur in quolibet accidente, est specialis modus entis includens diversitatem quamdam ad alios ejus modos: sicut in quantitate est specialis modus entis per aliud, scilicet quod sit mensura substantiae; et in qualitate, quod sit dispositio ejus; et sic de singulis. . . . Differentia vero debet sumi in eis per aliquid quod in illo modo a quo genus accidentis acceptum est, implicite contineatur. Hoc autem invenitur in diversitate principiorum ex quibus causantur; sicut, verbi gratia, ratio mensurae reperitur in quantitate, et hoc est commune omni speciei quantitatis, et ab hoc est acceptum nomen generis. Sed constat, quod successiva sunt diversa principia in natura sua a permanentibus; et ideo naturaliter diversas habent mensuras' (Exinde continuam inter ac discretam quantitatem distinctio specifica). Et inde est, quod

« ForrigeFortsett »